The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific

[fncceo]

Can life be destroyed?

59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!

I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.

He needs to PROVE that!

He can present it as a belief. No one is obligated to accept it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...but they love to pretend that Darwin's theory is a fact.

It isn't.

Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming. We can't see the atoms that compose us and likely never will, but does anyone doubt they exist?

"Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming."

What evidence?

No species has ever been show to have changed into another.




Perhaps you might consider posting from knowledge....but then you'd be mute.



I stated that Darwin's thesis is not a fact.
And, it isn't.
While evolution may be a fact, Darwin's theory certainly isn't....yet the Liberal education industry teaches dunces like you that it is.


1. The Burgess Shale attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. Whatever their classification, it is their origin that requires explanation. How, exactly, does the biological information necessary to produce new characteristics originate?

a. Darwinians can not explain where all the DNA information came along in such a short period of time
Disabled forum

2. The puzzle is made more dense when it seems likely that at least some of the near ancestors of the many arthropod animals that arose in the Cambrian would have left as least some rudimentary remains of exoskeletons in the PreCambrian fossil record if such proof existed, and if arthropods arose in the gradual way Darwinian theory states.





3. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

4. " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (Nature Research: science journals, jobs, information and services.)



When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that, “In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Communities — Voices and Insights - Washington Times



Seek out a library near you....I'm certain a kindly adult will help you get a library card.

 

[K9Buck]

Can life be destroyed?

59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!

I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.

He needs to PROVE that!

Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2.17Omnipotence

Even God cannot change the past.

- Agathon

"Albert, stop telling God what to do with his dice".

Neils Bohr

Thomas Hardy, as well, thought life was random...

If but some vengeful god would call to me
From up the sky, and laugh: “Thou suffering thing,
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,
That thy love's loss is my hate's profiting!”

Then would I bear it, clench myself, and die,
Steeled by the sense of ire unmerited;
Half-eased in that a Powerfuller than I
Had willed and meted me the tears I shed.

But not so. How arrives it joy lies slain,
And why unblooms the best hope ever sown?
—Crass Casualty obstructs the sun and rain,
And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan. . . .
These purblind Doomsters had as readily strown
Blisses about my pilgrimage as pain.

 

[alang1216]

"Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming."

What evidence?

No species has ever been show to have changed into another.

Perhaps you might consider posting from knowledge....but then you'd be mute.

I stated that Darwin's thesis is not a fact.
And, it isn't.
While evolution may be a fact, Darwin's theory certainly isn't...

Seek out a library near you....I'm certain a kindly adult will help you get a library card.

You should consider reading your cut and pasted snippets, you might learn something new:
Me: Evolution is a fact
You: While evolution may be a fact

It is impressive that you can agree with me and still insult me. Nice work, keep it up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can life be destroyed?

59 lives were just destroyed in Las Vegas!!!

I believe he's trying to say their non-corporeal anima still exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Weatherman.

He needs to PROVE that!

Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves.

"Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God..."

But those atheistic Liberals never seem to want to discuss the existence of evil.

Perhaps they realize that admitting the former implies the existence of the latter.....and we know where that would lead.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Atoms can, and it has been well established that they do, spontaneously create organic molecules under the right conditions and those organic molecules will combine to make more complex organic organism.
Eventually, they reach a level of complexity that can achieve consciousness.

Has this been replicated in a lab?

Yes. Several hundred times. The MU Experiment is very well documented.

"Eventually, they reach a level of complexity that can achieve consciousness."

Nonsense.

 

[alang1216]

Atheists are always DEMANDING that Christians "PROVE" the existence of God while offering no proof of anything themselves.

I don't think that is true, at least not for me. I know you cannot prove or disprove God. What I'd settle for was some evidence of God.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Evolution is a fact, we can see it but that doesn't change anything, the evidence is overwhelming."

What evidence?

No species has ever been show to have changed into another.

Perhaps you might consider posting from knowledge....but then you'd be mute.

I stated that Darwin's thesis is not a fact.
And, it isn't.
While evolution may be a fact, Darwin's theory certainly isn't...

Seek out a library near you....I'm certain a kindly adult will help you get a library card.

You should consider reading your cut and pasted snippets, you might learn something new:
Me: Evolution is a fact
You: While evolution may be a fact

It is impressive that you can agree with me and still insult me. Nice work, keep it up.

I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.

As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.

He admitted the test for same, here:
Darwin wrote in his Origin,

"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth. What evidence did Darwin provide for any of this?

Darwin wrote immediately afterward:

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164




"Charles Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology"
Darwin’s Theory of Gradual Evolution Not Supported by Geological History, NYU Scientist Concludes



Getting to feel like a buffoon, huh?

 

[alang1216]

But those atheistic Liberals never seem to want to discuss the existence of evil.

Perhaps they realize that admitting the former implies the existence of the latter.....and we know where that would lead.

Only if evil or good were absolutes would they support a "God". Since they are relative to each culture they don't support a "God".

 

[fncceo]

The beauty of science is ... it's not dogma. Darwin and Wallace never claimed their theory accounted for the origin of life on this planet. The origin of life wasn't well understood in the late 19th Century.

But, we know for a fact that evolution does affect the development of species and can create entire new species from common ancestors. The theory of the evolution of life from organic molecules (unlike the theory of gravity) isn't something that can be definitively tested in the lab because the experiments take millions of years and more to achieve results. But, the theory of natural selection does explain a great deal of how life developed on this planet and in cases where is doesn't, if enough evidence can be collected, the theory can be amended.

That's the beauty of science. When we find that it's wrong, there is no harm in correcting it.

Nonsense

And yet .. here we are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But those atheistic Liberals never seem to want to discuss the existence of evil.

Perhaps they realize that admitting the former implies the existence of the latter.....and we know where that would lead.

Only if evil or good were absolutes would they support a "God". Since they are relative to each culture they don't support a "God".

Consider the following as ....indirect.....evidence for both.

1. Those who have accepted Liberalism, postmodernism, Progressivism, mock the idea of the Judeo-Christian God, and compare same to Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.
And, they must.
Because if they accept the traditional view of God....then they would be forced to accept the corollary, the view that Evil, or Satan, or Lucifer, exist as well.....and the evidence would prove that Leftism is animated by that evil.




2. Compare Ronald Reagan's response to the what he named 'the evil empire' to Obama, who embraced and supported evil early on in his political career.

And, this is no surprise, as Barack Obama's mentor was Saul Alinsky, proud of his affiliation with the personification of evil:

"Alinsky dedicated his book to none other than the fallen angel Lucifer, yes that Lucifer, whom he describes as "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment (that would be God) and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom." Webutante: The Late Saul Alinsky, Obama's Radical Community Organizer Inspirer-in-Chief




If the true animator of Leftism was revealed....the American people would never support any of its iterations:
Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism, Communism, Socialism or Fascism.
Never.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The beauty of science is ... it's not dogma. Darwin and Wallace never claimed their theory accounted for the origin of life on this planet. The origin of life wasn't well understood in the late 19th Century.

But, we know for a fact that evolution does affect the development of species and can create entire new species from common ancestors. The theory of the evolution of life from organic molecules (unlike the theory of gravity) isn't something that can be definitively tested in the lab because the experiments take millions of years and more to achieve results. But, the theory of natural selection does explain a great deal of how life developed on this planet and in cases where is doesn't, if enough evidence can be collected, the theory can be amended.

That's the beauty of science. When we find that it's wrong, there is no harm in correcting it.

Nonsense

And yet .. here we are.

"The beauty of science is ... it's not dogma. Darwin and Wallace never claimed their theory accounted for the origin of life on this planet."

The Left controls the dissemination of what is called science....and it most certainly does claim to know.
That's why Darwin is taught as fact.

 

[fncceo]

The Left controls the dissemination of what is called science....and it most certainly does claim to know.
That's why Darwin is taught as fact.

It's not political, it's simplistic. At the Junior High and HIgh School level, it's true that teachers often quote textbook facts as if they were reading from scripture. Not out of political indoctrination, but out of sheer laziness.

However, at the University level, where teachers are better paid, have more time on their hands, and arguably more interested students, I've engaged in many a spirited debate over how life evolved on this planet. There is at least some evidence that life evolved off this planet and could have been introduced here by impact from comets or meteors.

As a religious Jew, I'm in no doubt of the existence of G-d. I also don't believe it's beyond G-d capabilities to use the tools available to him, such as natural selection, to create an infinitely diverse selection of lifeforms in the Universe.

 

[alang1216]

I understand that my posts are far too nuanced for a buffoon like you.

As I stated.....the 'evolution' taught to buffoons...Darwin's version....is certainly not a fact.

Darwin wrote on many subjects, on some he was correct and on some seriously wrong.

His theory that life evolved from a common ancestor is considered to be proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt. His theory that tried to establish the mechanism for that evolution, natural selection, is mostly accepted but Darwin changed his theory over time and it became less accepted as it "evolved". So you are incorrect, not all of Darwin's theories are taught as fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Physics and chemistry do not explain abiogenesis. There are many theories, but unless one can replicate abiogenesis in the lab it cannot be proven.

Actually, in 1951, the Miller-Urey experiment created amino acids (including ones that don't occur naturally) using nothing more than the gasses of the primitive Earth, water, and electricity. The experiment has been replicated hundreds of times using other gases and substituting UV radiation for simulated lightning and the results have always been the same, the production of organic molecules from pre-biotic ingredients.

It turns out that the production of organic compounds from inorganic compounds is actually fairly simple.

But that is still far far away from even a simple virus.

I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.

"I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes."

An absurd standard, by any measure.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Has this topic strayed seriously off course?

My apologies but I thought it had pretty much run its course.

Yes. You believe atoms are sentient yet cannot support your belief.

" You believe atoms are sentient yet cannot support your belief."

This is dumb. Of course we can. Humans are sentient, and humans are made up of atoms. therefore, a collection of atoms can be sentient. Argument over.

 

[fncceo]

I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.

It's not accurate. Abiogenesis is the creation of organic molecules from inorganic elements. This has been recreated many times under laboratory conditions using multiple different techniques, all simulating that which occurs randomly in nature.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think accurate to say that abiogenesis has still not been recreated by man using random processes.

Amino acids are the building blocks of life ... universally regarded as the simplest of organic molecules.

To be fair, scientists have only been working on this for a few decades. Nature has been doing it for several Billion years.

I think one day science will discover a process to replicate abiogenesis, as I think the Creator used natural processes to do everything He has done.

But I do not think the OP's point can or will ever be replicated and that is the creation of sentient life through random processes.

"that is the creation of sentient life through random processes."

Selection is not random. You keep repeating this same error.

 

[K9Buck]

What I'd settle for was some evidence of God.

The universe. Your existence.